State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Bradley Family Partners Trust / BFP&T
Claim Number: FA1906001846107
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Bradley Family Partners Trust / BFP&T (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmblock.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 3, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 3, 2019.
On June 3, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmblock.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 4, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmblock.com. Also on June 4, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 28, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a nationally known company that has been doing business under name “State Farm” since 1930. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,211,626 registered Sep. 18, 2012). See Compl. Ex. 1. Respondent’s <statefarmblock.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark as Complainant’s mark is the dominant portion of the domain name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmblock.com> as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did complainant authorize Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to create the impression that some type of association exists with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a parked, inactive webpage.
Respondent registered and used the <statefarmblock.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name for more than out-of-pocket costs. Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to create the impression that an affiliation exists between Respondent and Complainant. Finally, Respondent fails to actively use of the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 13, 2019.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the dispute domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <statefarmblock.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark STATE FARM. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adopting Complainant’s mark in total and deleting a space and adding the generic word “block” and the g TLD “.com” to this trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the dispute domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to create the impression that some type of association exists with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a parked, inactive webpage.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark and its rights thereto. Given the fame of Complainant’s trademark and the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds it unbelievable that Respondent happened upon the disputed domain randomly.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmblock.com> domain name TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: June 29, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page